JUDGMENT
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to accept his date of birth as 16.9.1949 which has also been mentioned in the Sirdar’s certificate for correcting and replacing the date of birth mentioned in the service sheet by 16.9.1945.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner was initially appointed on 24.6.1968 as Mazdoor, P.R. Loader and was posted at Jarandih C.C.L. The petitioner was promoted as Mining Sirdar on 8.5.1987 and was transferred to Swang Colliery, C.C.L, Kathara Area. The petitioner was then transferred to Govindpur Project in 1988 and since then he had been performing his duties as such the petitioner had given his date of birth as 16.9.1949 at the time of his initial appointment. He had also submitted the relevant document in support of the said date of birth in the year 1981. The petitioner was also sent for medical examination for determination of his date of birth by a Medical Board and the said Board had fixed his date of birth as 16.9.1949. During his service period the petitioner had appeared at the Mining Sirdar’s Examination held on 19.2.1986 and on being successful, was given a certificate. In the Sirdar’s certificate also his date of birth has been mentioned as 16.9.1949. It has been stated that for the first time in his pay slip of March 2004, the petitioner surprisingly found that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 16.9.1945 in stead of his actual date of birth as 16.9.1949. The date of birth was never mentioned earlier in the pay slip. The petitioner immediately thereafter made a representation requesting the department to correct his date of birth in accordance with the School Leaving Certificate and Sirdar’s certificate coupled with the medical report wherein his date of birth is recorded as 16.9.1949. On such representation, an Age Assessing Committee should have been constituted for correcting the said error in the date of birth, but in spite of several requests and representations the petitioner’s date of birth was not corrected.
3. It is relevant to mentioned here that during the pendency of this writ application the petitioner has been superannuated on 30.9.2005 on the basis of the date of birth recorded (as 16.9.49) in the petitioner’s service records.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents refuting the petitioner’s allegation and stating, inter alia, that the petitioner has unnecessarily raised the dispute of age at the fag end of his service after having accepted the entries recorded in the Company’s records as well as the service records of the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner had made prayer for alteration of the date of birth recorded in the service book also at the earlier stage, but his said prayer was rejected by order dated 25/26.3.79 (Annexure-D). The petitioner accepted the said order and no challenge was made for more than two decades and after lapse of about 25 years when the petitioner was at the verge of retirement, he had raised the said issue which was settled long ago. It has been stated that the petitioner’s date of birth is recorded as 16.9.1945 at the very inception as per the Medical Report Sl. No. 78 dated 16.9.1970 duly certified by the then Medical Officer, Jarangdih Colliery. The record also contains thumb impression of the petitioner acknowledging the acceptance of the said entry of his date of birth. There was never any alteration/interpolation in the petitioner’s date of birth. The said date has been recorded in Form B Register which is a statutory record under the Mines Act. The petitioner has himself made declaration in the C.M.P.F record on 16.9.1970 wherein he has also mentioned his date of birth as 16.9.1945. The said declaration has also been authenticated by the then Medical Officer, Jarangdih Colliery and the petitioner had also put his thumb impression. It has been stated that the petitioner has never furnished School Leaving Certificate earlier at any stage of time, inasmuch as, the said certificate cannot be relied upon in terms of the service rules of the Company which recognize only Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate or the Board’s Middle Certificate in support of the date of birth of an employee. It has been stated that so far as the date of birth mentioned in the Medical Board Certificate dated 19.3.1981 (Annexure-2) is concerned, the same was mentioned after entry of the date of birth in the petitioner’s service records and the same does not tally with the petitioner’s date of birth recorded in the statutory service record i.e. Register B Form and C.M.P.F record.
5. I have heard Mr. P.C. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entry made in the statutory Form B Register and the service records is wholly baseless and contrary to the petitioner’s School Leaving Certificate and Mining Sirdar’s certificate and the same can not be accepted as correct entry. It has been submitted that on the basis of the said wrong entry, the petitioner has been forced to retire about four years earlier to his actual date of retirement which amounts to infringement of the petitioner’s valuable right. It has been further submitted that the petitioner came to know about the wrong entry of his date of birth for the first time in the year 2000 and he immediately thereafter protested against the same. The respondents should have made necessary correction after due enquiry, but the respondents failed to do so. In that circumstance, the petitioner has to take resort to this Court. It has been submitted that the said arbitrary action of the respondents goes to cause serious prejudice, loss and injury to the petitioner. The respondents cannot lightly take such objection raised by an employee and cannot suppress the petitioner’s protest and force him to superannuate before attaining the age of his retirement. Learned Counsel referred to and relied upon an order passed by a Bench of this Court passed in Baidya Nath Singh v. B.C.C.L, Dhanbad and Ors. C.W.J.C No. 3669/1998(R) in order to fortify his contention that the respondents cannot deny correction of the date of birth only on the ground that the objection has been raised at the fag end of service. Learned Counsel led much emphasis on Paragraph 7 of the said order to strengthen his said point. Paragraph 7 of the said order runs as follows:
In the instant case also as noticed above the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the service-book was altered and changed by interpolation made by the respondent behind the back of the petitioner. This Court takes serious exception to conduct of the respondent in changing the date of birth in the service book without giving notice and behind the back of the petitioner. Curiously enough the representation of the petitioner was disposed of on the ground that the objection with regard to the date of birth was raised by the petitioner at the fag end of service. In fact respondent-authority reiterated the same thing which was held by this Court in the order dated 25.6.97, which was ultimately set aside by the Supreme Court. It is further surprising to notice that after the appointment of the petitioner, respondents issued Identity Card and the Mining Sardar certificate in which date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 1946. But for the first time without any basis and ignoring their own document and also School Leaving Certificate the date of birth of the petitioner was altered behind his back and without notice to him. In that view of the matter, I am of the definite opinion that the impugned order passed by the respondent/authority superannuating the petitioner with effect from 1.7.1997 is palpably illegal, malafide and without any basis.
6. Learned Counsel submitted that the said order was also upheld in L.P.A No. 95/2000(R).
7. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that in the case of the petitioner, the date of birth was all along mentioned as 16.9.1945. It is not his case that the date of birth earlier recorded in the service record has been struck off and in place thereof new entry has been made or there is any interpolation in the date of birth. It has been submitted that the decision rendered in the case of Baidya Nath Singh (supra) is based on different facts and circumstances which would be evident from the said decision. In the said case the date of birth of an employee was changed in the service book by way of interpolation, behind the back of the employee whereas in other records and the documents issued by the respondents, some other date was mentioned. The representation filed by the petitioner with regard to such arbitrary interpolation was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the objection was regarding the alteration of the date of birth and the same has been raised at the fag end of service. The said interpolation behind the back of the petitioner was deprecated and the change made was held to be illegal in the said decision. In the instant case there is no allegation of any interpolation or alteration behind the back of the petitioner and the entry made in all the service records is consistent. However, the petitioner wanted to change his date of birth on the basis of the Sirdar’s certificate which was issued to him after joining the service and was contrary to the entry made in the service record.
8. I find much substance in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the respondents. In the instant case, the petitioner has not alleged any change or interpolation in the entry of his date of birth in the original service records. The petitioner has alleged that the entry in the service record is contrary to the date of birth mentioned in the Sirdar’s certificate. It is an admitted position that the petitioner entered into the service in the year 1968. The petitioner got Sirdar’s certificate during his service period in the year 1986. Obviously, the petitioner’s date of birth mentioned in the Sirdar’s certificate cannot be the basis for entry of his date of birth in the service records which were of much earlier date. Accordingly the respondents, the petitioner has raised the same objection much earlier and by order dated 25/26.3.79 (Annexure-D) the respondents-Company had rejected the petitioner’s said claim, having found no substance therein. In paragraph 17 of his rejoinder to the counter affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the said rejection order (Annexure-D) was never served on him. However, he has not denied to have raised such objection in the year 1979. On the other hand, the petitioner has brought Annexure-2 on record alleging the same as a medical report, by which his date of birth was determined as 16.9.1949. The respondents have denied the genuineness of the said report (Annexure-2) and alleged the same as manufactured. In view of the contradictory claims/production of rival documents on the one hand Annexure-2 and on the other Annexure-D the issues of disputed facts arise in this case as to whether the petitioner’s request for alteration of his date of birth was rejected in the year 1979 and as to whether the report of the Medical Board (Annexure-2) is a genuine document or manufactured one. The said issues of disputed facts cannot be adjudicated upon and decided in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner, if so advised, may approach the appropriate Forum seeking adjudication and decision on the said issues and for other consequential reliefs. In the circumstances of the case, this writ application is held as not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed.